2021 10th International Conference on Power Science and Engineering
Design and CFD Analysis of Biomimetic Turbine Blade for Low-velocity Tidal
Streams
2021 10th International Conference on Power Science and Engineering (ICPSE) | 978-1-6654-0598-0/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICPSE53473.2021.9656832
Emil Christian R. Luna
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Mapúa University
Intramuros, Manila City, Philippines
e-mail: emilchristianluna@gmail.com
Abstract—A Horizontal Axis Tidal Turbine blade with an
NREL S814 profile was designed and optimized for low-
velocity tidal streams using QBlade. The optimized blade is
then integrated with a biomimetic concept and modeled. This
biomimetic concept took inspiration from the protuberances
on the pectoral fins of Megaptera novaeangliae or Humpback
Whale. Two biomimetic configurations, namely 0.15C and
0.2C, were incorporated to a baseline blade. These blades are
then subjected to steady-state filtering to see which biomimetic
configuration has the highest coefficient of lift and glide ratio
at 0°to 20°angle of attack at an inlet velocity of 0.5m/s. The
result showed that the 0.2C configuration has the highest
CL/CD, which is 6.3109 at a 10° angle of attack. 0.2C also
produced a CL of 0.6115 at 19°before it stalled at 20°. 0.15C
produced a CL/CD of 6.1551 at 10° and CL of 0.5883 at 18°
before it stalled at 19°while the baseline blade, 0.0C, stalled at
8°and produced a CL/CD of 5.3008 and CL of 0.2402 at 7°. The
0.2C configuration was then integrated into a HATT setup and
was then subjected to transient simulation at inlet velocities of
0.5, 0.64, and 1.136m/s and a specified Tip Speed Ratio of 6.
The Biomimetic HATT produced a Torque of 174.914 Nm,
288.955 Nm, 918.054 Nm, Thrust of 1299.09 N, 2134.20 N,
6742.34 N, and Power of 262.371 W, 554.794 W, and 3128.728
W at 0.5, 0.64, and 1.136 m/s inlet velocities, respectively. The
results showed that it has 37.46% lesser torque and 6.13%
lesser power output at 0.64m/s. At 1.136m/s inlet velocity, it has
a 36.93% lesser torque and 5.39% lesser power output when
compared to a BEM modified blade designed at a TSR of 4.
The biomimetic HATT performed better than the blade design
of [3] and [4] since this biomimetic design has lesser torque and
higher rotational velocity at (a) almost the same power output,
(b) same inlet velocities, and (c) the same swept area.
Furthermore, the high TSR operation reduces cost in the
design of the power take-off system since it can employ direct
drive mechanisms.
Keywords-Horizontal Axis Tidal Turbine; Leading-edge
Tubercles; Tidal Energy; Biomimicry; CFD Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
Tidal energy is one of the most reliable forms of
renewable energy since tides can be predicted, and the
possible energy that can be harnessed can be projected for
longer periods. One of the devices that are used for this
energy conversion is called a Horizontal Axis Tidal Turbine.
The analysis and design method for this is almost similar to
978-1-6654-0598-0/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Seyed Hamed Hashemi Sohi
School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
Mapúa University
Intramuros, Manila City, Philippines
e-mail: shhashemisohi@mapua.edu.ph
wind turbines. The only difference is that Tidal Turbines can
be made smaller than Wind Turbines since water is much
denser than air, which can produce a higher energy output
for the same input velocity.
The downside of this form of energy is that it is very site-
specific. Tides occur in all parts of the world, but there are
only areas where the current velocity caused by these tides is
strong enough to be able to produce rotational motion that is
enough to produce usable energy. Conventional tidal turbine
design operates at 1.852 to 2.521 m/s [1]. Below 1.852 m/s,
tidal turbines cannot produce electricity since they can no
longer operate efficiently. This is the reason why the
viability of tidal turbines is low.
In less energetic flows, large torque production is not
possible [2]. Therefore, operating at high angular velocities
will result in the reduction of torque. This is very beneficial
since this will lessen the cost of the power take-off
mechanism by employing a smaller generator size or perhaps
a direct drive system. Also, airfoil design is crucial since
airfoils cannot operate at low Reynold’s Number. NREL
S814 has been proven to be effective at low-velocity flows
[3]. Another modification method is the use of the Blade
Element Momentum Method. This modifies the chord and
twist distribution by following the process stated by [4].
Since the tangential velocity is low at the blade's root, the
blade has very large twist angles. Therefore, the application
of the BEM Method at low-velocity applications will result
in a highly twisted blade.
Other researchers incorporated several design approaches
to design a tidal turbine that can operate at low-velocity
streams. Such as that of [5], wherein they modified the
power take-off mechanism of the tidal turbine system
together with the blade modification using the BEM method.
Magnetic coupling was used in the transmission system to
reduce the resistance and thus increase the power coefficient
of the system. The resulting Coefficient of power is 0.41 at a
TSR of 5 with an inlet stream velocity of 0.5 m/s. BEM
modification was also used by [3]. A scaled model of the
turbine with an NREL S814 profile was tested at different
inlet velocities. The model obtained a CP of 0.075 at 0.5 m/s
inlet velocity at 4.06 TSR. The original blade design of [3]
was modified by using a scaling coefficient using a conic
equation [2] to produce a slender blade that can operate at
high angular velocities at an inlet velocity of 0.64 m/s and
1.136 m/s. The chord distribution modification produced a
70
 hyperbolic, linear, and elliptical spanwise chord distribution
profile. The NREL S814 linear profile produced a CP of 0.33
at a TSR of 4.75. The power produced for inlet velocities of
0.64 m/s and 1.136 m/s is 521 W and 2915 W, respectively.
Thus, a conventional design approach was utilized to tackle
the problem of producing a tidal turbine that can operate at
low-velocity streams.
The nonconventional design approach utilizes
biomimicry. Biomimicry takes nature as its inspiration or
source of knowledge to apply its concepts to the present
technology to solve existing design problems [6]. The
protuberances on the pectoral fins of Megaptera
novaeangliae have captured the interest of several
researchers because of their peculiar design. Close
examination of the cross-section and planform of the flipper,
it is evident that the design indicates hydrodynamic adaption
to generate lift and minimize drag. The shape of the said
planform is elliptical and thus creates a uniform distribution
of lift throughout the flipper. This shape also reduces drag.
There are similarities between the cross-section of the flipper
and existing designs of airfoils and hydrofoils. The midspan
section of the flipper has the same design profile as that of
the NACA 634-021 foil. This streamlined shape has a blunt,
rounded leading-edge, maximum thickness at 33% posterior
of the leading-edge, and lastly, a trailing edge that is narrow
[7]. Tubercles on the flippers greatly reduce drag because of
morphological complexities on a hydroplane. These
tubercles function to generate vortices by unsteady excitation
of flow to maintain lift and prevent stalls at a high angle of
attack. This can be compared to an aircraft’s strakes.
Because of these tubercles, the vortices undergo an exchange
in momentum within the boundary layer to keep it attached
and prevent stall [7].
The peculiar design of the flippers of the Humpback
Whale was then incorporated in the design of conventional
tidal turbines. A numerical investigation on the effects of
adding a sinusoidal leading-edge on a NACA 0012 was
conducted by [8]. Two amplitude variation was tested versus
a NACA 0012 smooth leading-edge. ANSYS Fluent was
used for the numerical experiment of the said airfoil and its
different tubercle configurations. Different angles of attack,
0° to 30° with an increment of 5, were tested on the said
airfoil with the inlet velocity at 2.1 m/s. The first tubercle
configuration was a tubercle with an amplitude of 5% of the
chord length. The second configuration was 7.5% of chord
length. The result of the study points out that a tubercle
configuration with a higher amplitude decreases the drag
coefficient while an airfoil with a smooth leading-edge has a
high value for the drag coefficient. The findings for the
coefficient of lift on the airfoil with tubercles show that CL
decreases after a 10°angle of attack; however, it is almost
kept the same until it reaches 30°with a range of 0.94 to 0.87,
suggesting that it removes the presence of stall. Higher
amplitude also increases lift coefficients. Stalling of smooth
leading-edge NACA 0012 appears at 12° angle of attack.
Another study was made wherein optimization of a
biomimetic S814 hydrofoil was conducted [9]. Two
optimizations of the reference hydrofoil have undergone
numerical simulation and experimental testing to validate
71
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
results. The first was a 0001 configuration. The tubercles
covered only ¼ of its leading edge. The other is a 1111
configuration wherein all its leading-edge has tubercles. A
2D experimental investigation to measure the lift and drag
forces resulted in Foil 0001 having a more positive result
than Foil 0000 and 1111, with an angle of attack of 0°to 26°.
It was concluded from this experimental investigation that
Foil 0001 has better performance in the context of the ratio
of lift and drag versus angle of attack. A 3D investigation
was then conducted to see the 3D effects of cavitation and to
the turbine blades and to validate experimental results. The
simulation and experiment showed that a strong tip vortex
and cloud cavitation was observed in Foil 0000 and not in
Foil 1111. In addition to this, counter-rotating vortices were
seen on Foil 1111. These vortices interact with the tip vortex
and thus stop it from spreading along the surface of the
hydrofoil with tubercles [9]. The study concluded that a tidal
turbine blade with a bionic concept performs better than an
S814 with no leading-edge tubercles. The conclusion drawn
from the past literature suggests that tubercles on the leading
edge of the turbine blade greatly improves the performance
of the blade in terms of lift and stalling angle.
The current study produced a HATT blade with an NREL
S814 profile, using the Blade Element Momentum method,
and incorporates a biomimetic concept that can effectively
operate on lower current velocities, i.e., 0.5 to 1.136 m/s, at a
TSR of 6. Since other literature shows that biomimetic
blades based on Megaptera novaeangliae flippers show
promising results in Coefficient of Lift, Drag, Power, Thrust,
and stall characteristics. Steady-state filtering was done for
the selection of the biomimetic blade with two different
configurations. The selected biomimetic blade configuration
was then integrated into a HATT setup and was subjected to
a transient flow simulation which was then analyzed and
compared to existing biomimetic and nonbiomimetic HATT
literature.
II. METHODOLOGY
The paper focuses on the design, optimization, and CFD
analysis of a biomimetic horizontal axis tidal turbine. Two
biomimetic configurations were specified, which are 0.15C
and 0.2C, and the baseline blade is 0.0C. The numbers
indicate the chord length modifications done on the blade
element. For example, 0.2C means that the chord length was
increased by 20%, while 0.15C means that 15% of the chord
length was added to the original length of the chord. 0.0C
indicates that there were no modifications done.
To better explain the process, the methodology is divided
into three phases: (a) biomimetic turbine blade geometry, (b)
biomimetic steady-state filtering, and lastly (c) biomimetic
HATT transient simulation. The first phase focuses on the
design and optimization of the baseline blade and the
integration of the biomimetic concepts. The second phase is
filtering the different biomimetic configurations through
steady-state analysis by subjecting the configurations at 0.5
m/s inlet velocity at 0°to 20°angles of attack and selecting
the blade with the highest glide ratio, coefficient of lift, and
stall angle and lastly, the integration of the selected
biomimetic configuration to a HATT setup and subjecting it
 in a transient simulation at inlet velocities of 0.5 m/s, 0.64 effects of varying amplitudes and wavelength in a blade that
m/s, and 1.136 m/s. has protuberances on the leading edge. The different blade
configurations were subjected to different inlet velocities at -
A. Biomimetic Turbine Blade Geometry 6°to 30°angle of attack. The result shows that amplitude
The methodology starts at the design of the baseline greatly affects the performance while wavelength had little to
blade, or the 0.0C, by using QBlade. QBlade is an open- no effect on the output.
source program used to design, optimize, and simulate wind
turbines [10]. This can also be used for tidal turbines by
changing certain parameters such as the density and
kinematic viscosity of the fluid used. This paper used 1025
kg/m3 and 0.000920 m2/s for the density and kinematic
viscosity, respectively. NREL S814 was specifically used
since it has already been proven that it can perform well at
low-velocity streams [2] [3] and that the airfoil shows
similarities with the dissected fins of the whale, as shown in
Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Comparison of NREL S814 and dissected flipper of Humpback

Whale

Two-dimensional aerodynamic characteristics of NREL

S814 at Reynold’s Number of 500,000 and -10° to 20° Figure 2. A comparison between (a) 0.0C blade designed and optimized in
angles of attack were evaluated. The result of this evaluation QBlade and (b) 0.2C blade in Autodesk Inventor
was used for the creation of a 4m diameter tidal turbine. First,
chord distribution and twist distribution were automatically These modifications resulted in a total of three blades,
created by using QBlade’s BEM algorithm. The baseline one baseline and two biomimetic blades, to be subjected in
blade is then optimized for a TSR of 6 to produce a slender the steady-state filtering.
and low solidity blade profile. This is done to create a blade B. Steady-state Filtering
that can operate at high angular velocities to reduce the
The three-blade configurations are subjected to an inlet
torque input since high torque production is not possible on
velocity of 0.5 m/s and are transitioned at 0°to 20°angles of
low-velocity streams [2].
attack using ANSYS Fluent. The blade configuration with
The 0.0C baseline blade is then fitted with two
the highest glide ratio, lift coefficient, and stall angle will be
biomimetic configurations, namely, 0.15C and 0.2C, by
selected.
dividing it into 21 blade elements. The numbers before the
Fig. 3 shows the fluid domain for the steady-state
letter C indicates the percent increase of the chord length.
filtering. This uses a rectangular fluid domain with a width
Meaning, 0.15 indicates a 15% increase in the chord length.
of 0.222m, a height of 0.3325m above and below the airfoil,
This is also the same with the 0.2C configuration indicating a
an upstream distance of 0.624m, and a downstream length of
20% increase in the chord length of the blade element. Chord
1.404m from the leading edge. It is also recommended that a
modifications at each blade element are implemented
alternatingly to create a sinusoidal leading edge. The blade
elements are represented as green lines in Fig. 2. The
wavelength is held constant and is equal to 0.185m. The only
variation for each configuration is the amplitude since this
has more impact on the design [8] [16].
In a numerical study by [8], higher amplitudes produce
higher lift force and lesser drag force than a smooth leading-
edge. An experimental study was also done by [16] to see the Figure 3. Fluid domain of 0.2C for steady-state filtering

72

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 hex-core mesh be used for external flows [11]. A rectangular
fluid domain was made by [12] that has 1.3C upstream and
10.3C downstream distance from the airfoil leading-edge.
The vertical distance is 2C above and below the foil, while
the width of the domain is equal to the span of the blade. Hex
mesh is also used and with two zones. An internal zone is
made for refinement, while the external zone is much coarser.
An external and internal domain is created similar to [12] to
provide a refinement zone inside the domain to better capture
the flow near the boundaries of the blade, as shown in Fig. 4.
The resulting mesh orthogonality is 0.95851, with a total cell
count of 2,540,687. The recommended orthogonality should
be closer to 1 to produce a good mesh, while 0 is a bad mesh
[11]. The layer height above the surface of the blade is
0.035mm to produce a y+ value equal to 1.
The turbulence model used is SST k-ω. This turbulence
model has shown great accuracy in producing data. A steady-
state flow condition was selected to save computational time
during the selection of blade configuration. SST k-ω was
also used by [13] and [12] for their turbulence model in an
airfoil-fluid domain setup similar to this study. Their
numerical results are in good agreement with their
experimental data.
Coupled Pressure Based Solver with second-order
discretization was used. The solution converged at the 1x10-5
criterion. The lower the residuals criterion, the better. But it
is very hard to converge at 1x10-6, especially if it’s a 3D
analysis. There are published papers with a 1x10-4
convergence criterion as that of the paper of [8]. 1x10-3 can
be a sign of convergence [14], but the scaled energy residual
should decrease to 1x10-6 when using a pressure-based solver.
Figure 4. External and internal zones with hexcore mesh with 0.2C at 10°
angle of attack
Figure 5. Comparison between (a) 0.2C blade configuration and (b) the
actual flippers of the Humpback Whale. While (c) shows the 0.2C
configuration integrated in a HATT setup for transient simulation
73
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. Biomimetic HATT Transient Simulation
After selecting the biomimetic blade with the highest
Glide Ratio, the blade was then integrated into a HATT
using Inventor. Fig. 5 shows the selected 0.2C configuration
in an HATT setup and is compared to the actual flippers of
the whale. The model was then imported to Spaceclaim for
the merging of the HATT with the fluid domain. A 4m
diameter turbine was specified by [2] for low-velocity
currents in the Philippines and Mexico. The diameter of the
HATT in this study will be the same as [2] to directly
compare the two different turbines with different
modification methods but with the same application. Fig. 6
shows the geometry for this study which consisted of two
cylindrical domains in which the internal domain was refined
to increase the accuracy of the solution without actually
refining the whole fluid domain. Having the whole domain in
a fine mesh is an impractical method of acquiring an accurate
solution, resulting in a high computational effort. Two
separate cylindrical domains were made by [5] in which the
external cylinder has a diameter of 6D, wherein D is equal to
the diameter of the HATT, upstream length of 4D, and
downstream length of 8D, resulting in a total distance of 12D.
These measurements are adopted in the present study in
addition to an internal domain equal to a diameter of 4.1m
and length of 0.2m, as shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 6. External and internal cylindrical domains
Figure 7. Side view of the cylindrical fluid domain
Fluent meshing program was used for the domains of the
external fluid and the internal zone near the HATT. This
zone separation is similar to [5] but except for the meshing
program used. The geometry, consisting of the two domains
 and HATT, was imported directly to Fluent mesh and is then
simultaneously meshed. This contrasts with [15], wherein the
zones were meshed separately and were later merged. Due to
the sinusoidal characteristic of the leading-edge, as shown in
Fig. 8, fine tetrahedral volume fill was used in the internal
zone since, according to [11], unstructured mesh or
tetrahedral mesh is best for complex geometries. Fig. 9
shows that tetrahedral mesh was also used for the external
domain with strict control on the cell count without
sacrificing the mesh quality. The growth rate used is 1.2 and
the final y+ value above the surface of the blades is 1.
Figure 8. Tetrahedral mesh for internal zone
Figure 9. Internal and external tetrahedral mesh
Mesh independence test was done at an inlet velocity of
0.64 m/s and a TSR of 6. Table I shows the summary of the
Cp and Ct at different grid elements. The 6.8 and 9.1 million
grid elements produced results that are almost the same.
Therefore, to efficiently lessen the computational time for the
simulation without significantly affecting the results, the 6.8
million grid was chosen for this study.
The final resulting mesh cell count for the internal
domain is 4,853,225 and for the external domain is
2,015,477. The quality report for the skewness and
orthogonal quality is 0.253 and 0.736, respectively. ANSYS
Fluent User Guide [11] recommends a skewness of close to 0,
which indicates that it’s an equilateral triangle. This goes on
as 0-0.25 excellent, 0.25-0.5 good, 0.5-0.75 fair, 0.75-0.9
poor, 0.9-<1 bad, and 1 indicates a degenerate cell.
Orthogonal quality closer to 0 has the worst cells, and those
close to 1 are the best cells.
74
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The turbulence model used is SST k-ω as recommended
by [14] for standard cases. A transient flow condition was
selected. The same turbulence model was also used by [5]
and gathered results that are in good agreement with the
experimental data.
TABLE I. GRID INDEPENDENCE TEST AT 0.64 M/S INLET VELOCITY
Grid Elements Coefficient of Coefficient of
(million) Power Thrust
4.5 0.333 0.810
6.8 0.329 0.809
9.1 0.328 0.807
The biomimetic HATT was subjected to three inlet
velocities. Namely, 0.5, 0.64, and 1.136m/s. 0.64m/s and
1.136m/s were chosen since [2] specified the current velocity
on some locations in the Philippines to be 0.64m/s and
1.136m/s in Mexico. Nevertheless, the purpose of this paper
and [2] are the same since the tidal turbine is designed to
operate at low-velocity tidal streams. 0.5m/s was specified in
this paper to set the design point of the tidal turbine blades to
a minimum velocity. This will result in a wider range of
operational velocity for low kinetic energy tidal turbines.
The density used is 1025 kg/m3. The pressure outlet
condition was selected to be the outlet boundary. On the
other hand, the external boundary condition is selected as
symmetry to let the solver consider it a very large volume of
fluid [5]. This is done to imitate the physical world since the
HATT will be put in a location where large volumes of water
will surround it.
ANSYS Fluent User Guide [11] recommends pressure-
based segregated solver for this type of application and
PRESTO! scheme since this study involves rotating flows.
PRESTO! is well suited for rotating flows that have steep
pressure gradients. A convergence criterion for energy is
1x10-6 and for other parameters was 1x10-5. 1x10-3 can be a
sign of convergence according to [14], but the scaled energy
residual should decrease to 1x10-6 when using a pressure-
based solver.
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To better present the results, this section will be divided
into four parts, with the first three reflecting the methodology
and the last part being the comparative analysis.
A. Biomimetic Turbine Blade Geometry
Figure 10. Spanwise chord distribution for all the configurations
 The unmodified configuration of the blade, or 0.0C, was
done in QBlade using its BEM algorithm. The blade was
made to have a constant pitch or no twist angle [9] to
simplify the design since it will be fitted with leading-edge
tubercles mimicked from the pectoral fins of Humpback
Whales. To produce protuberances at the leading edge of the
blade, the modifications of the chord length of the blade
element was done alternatingly depending on the specified
amplitude of the biomimetic configuration, as shown in Fig.
10.
B. Steady-State Filtering
This phase selects the best-performing blade
configuration at 0° to 20° angle of attack at 0.5m/s. Flow
visualizations are presented here using different post-
processing techniques together with data graphs.
The pressure coefficient contour is overlaid with
pathlines to better see the direction of the flow. All three
configurations are presented at the initial position of 0°, then
at the pre-stall angle where the highest glide ratio occurred,
and lastly at their stall angle.
Figure 11. Pressure coefficient contour of 0.0C
The 0.0C configuration started with a normal pressure
coefficient gradient and a small flow separation at the lower
surface near the airfoil's trailing edge, as shown in Fig. 11.
The highest glide ratio was attained at 7°just before it stalled
at 8°. But there was already a small flow separation at 7°at
the upper surface near the trailing edge. Flow circulation at
this angle can be seen as visualized by the pathline, and at 8°,
75
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
stalling was evident. 0.15C at the initial angle has almost the
same pressure coefficient gradient as 0.0C. However, there
was no stalling up until 19°, which shows an excessive
improvement in the performance of the airfoil, which can be
seen in Fig. 12. The highest glide ratio was recorded at 10°,
which is also above the stall angle of 0.0C. 0.2C flow
characteristics were the same with the other two airfoils at 0°.
The highest glide ratio also occurred at 10°; however, the
pathline contour showed that the stall angle for this
configuration occurred at 20°. The flow separation was much
more evident, as shown in Fig. 13, compared to 0.15C’s stall
angle, but this occurred at a degree higher than that of the
first biomimetic configuration.
Figure 12. Pressure coefficient contour of 0.15C
All the maximum flow-velocity occurred at the suction
side of the foil since the shape of the airfoil causes the
pressure to drop at the upper surface and increase at the
lower surface or the pressure side.
Pathlines are the lines traveled by massless fluid particles
in the domain. This is used to better visualize the flow for 3-
dimensional simulations. The visualization of the pathlines
shows the airfoil at its initial position, then at the angle
where the highest glide ratio occurs, and lastly at the stall
angle.
From Fig. 14, the three-blade configurations performed
almost the same but started to show differences at 7°. 0.0C
was very unstable since it stalled at 8°, but then it started to
produce lift again at 9°and stalled again at 10°up until 20°.
0.15C also showed some fluctuations in the lift coefficient,
 but there was no stall up until 19°if the data is compared to
its velocity contour. The highest CL attained by 0.15C is
0.5883 at 18°before it stalled and had a 31.53% decrease in
lift at 19°. For 0.2C, it produced a smoother transition of CL
for each angle of attack. Again, there are no fluctuations, and
stall occurred at 20°. The highest CL attained by this
configuration is 0.6115 at 19°and had a 21.99% decrease in
lift at the stall angle.
Figure 13. Pressure coefficient contour of 0.2C
Figure 14. Coefficient of lift vs angle of attack
Fig. 15 shows the drag coefficient versus AoA. 0.0C
showed a continuous increase in the drag coefficient, but
there was a drag reduction of 45.29% at 1°. 0.15C still
showed fluctuations and produced the highest CD of 0.1475
at 20°of all the three configurations. 0.2C, on the other hand,
76
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
still had a smooth transition, and it also exhibited lower drag
coefficients from 0°to 11°.
Fig. 16 shows the defining parameter for the selection of
the blade. 0.0C performed poorly overall, but it's better when
compared to 0.15C and 0.2C, at 0°by 107.8%. The highest
pre-stall CL/CD attained is 5.3008 at 7°. 0.15C attained a
CL/CD of 6.1551 at 10°. 0.2C, on the other hand, had a
6.3109 CL/CD at 10°. 0.2C’s highest glide ratio is 19.06%
and 2.53% better than that of 0.0C and 0.15C’s highest glide
ratio. 0.2C dominated 0.0C in terms of CL, CD, and GR,
while it only has a small difference compared to 0.15C with
the same parameter. Also, 0.2C has a smoother graph and
higher stall angle, which clearly shows that it outperforms
0.15C.
Figure 15. Coefficient of Drag vs Angle of Attack
Figure 16. Glide ratio vs angle of attack
C. Biomimetic HATT Transient Simulation
0.2C was chosen to be integrated on a HATT since it has
the highest glide ratio and better hydrodynamic performance
at different angles of attack. This Biomimetic HATT
underwent transient simulation. Performance is evaluated by
using contours and XY plot. The simulation is then
compared with other existing literature for both biomimetic
and nonbiomimetic tidal turbines.
All simulations converged below 1x10-5, which satisfies
the specified convergence criterion for residuals. Each has a
different time since their angular velocities differ because of
the different inlet velocities at a constant TSR of 6. The total
 time is based on the time it takes for the rotor to rotate three
times.
For 0.5m/s, the velocity ranges from 0 to 3m/s. For the
0.64m/s, it ranges from 0 to 3.84m/s. And lastly, for the
1.136m/s, it ranges from 0 to 6.82m/s. The contours show
that the flow velocity increases as it moves away from the
root to the blade's tip. This is due to the varying local
tangential velocity experienced by the blade. Since local
radius influences the result of the local tangential velocity,
the higher the radius, the higher this velocity is. This, in turn,
influences the angle of attack experienced by the different
sections of the blade. The closer the local blade element to
the root is, the larger the angle of attack is experienced due to
smaller tangential velocity.

Figure 17. Pressure contour at 0.5 m/s at different sections of the blade

Figure 18. Pressure contour at 0.64 m/s at different sections of the blade

Fig. 17 to 19 show the pressure distribution at different
sections of the blade. Lower pressure is experienced on the
suction side of the blade, and higher pressure can be seen on
the pressure side of the blade. Large pressure differences at
the pressure side usually occur at the maximum thickness of
the airfoil. Since this has a sinusoidal leading-edge, it is also
worth noting that large pressure differences occur on the
troughs of the leading-edge at the suction side of the blade.
This means that the flow is faster at the trough than the flow
at the crest of the LET. As shown in Fig. 17, the lowest
pressure and highest pressure obtained at 0.5m/s are -
9.03E+3 Pa and 4.61E+3 Pa, respectively. For 0.64m/s, the
lowest and highest pressure is -1.48E+4 Pa and 7.57E+3 Pa,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 18. Lastly, for 1.136m/s, the
lowest pressure is -4.69E+4 Pa, and the highest pressure is
2.32E+4 Pa, as shown in Fig. 19.
The Torque obtained from the simulation are 174.914
Nm, 288.955 Nm, and 918.054 Nm for inlet velocities of 0.5,
0.64, and 1.136m/s, respectively. The thrust obtained from
the simulation is 1299.09 N, 2134.20 N, and 6742.34 N for
inlet velocities of 0.5, 0.64, and 1.136 m/s, respectively.
The result of power is computed by multiplying the
Torque produced and angular velocity at each inlet velocity
condition. These are 262.37 W, 554.79 W, and 3128.73 W
for inlet velocities of 0.5m.s, 0.64m/s, and 1.136m/s,
respectively.

77

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Figure 19. Pressure contour at 1.136 m/s at different sections of the blade

D. Comparative Analysis
The summary of performance for the biomimetic HATT
is shown in Table VIII, and these results are then compared
with existing literature. Table II, Table III, and Table IV
shows the comparison of different parameters at 0.5, 0.64,
and 1.136 m/s inlet velocities, respectively. The Torque and
Power Differences are obtained by comparing the output of
[2] and the present study to [3] Torque and Power output.
The Torque output of [2] is 25.76% lesser, and the Power
output is 11.84% lesser when compared to [3] at 0.64m/s.
For 1.136m/s, it has 25.77% lesser torque and 11.85% lesser Figure 21. Power output comparison versus [3] at 1.136 m/s inlet velocity
power output. The biomimetic blade of the present study has
37.42% lesser torque and 6.13% lesser power output at
TABLE II. COMPARISON OF NONBIOMIMETIC BLADE DESIGN AT 0.5
0.64m/s, as shown in Fig. 20 and Table V. For 1.136m/s, it M/S
produced a 36.93% lesser torque and 5.39% lesser power
output, as shown in Fig. 21 and Table VI. Of the three, the Blade Design
Parameters Doman et al, Tian et al,
biomimetic blade performs better since it has lesser torque Present Study
(2015) (2018)
and a higher rotational velocity at a power output that is Diameter, (m) 0.762 1.2 4
almost identical to the other tidal turbine designs. Table VII TSR 4 5 6
shows that the design output of this paper had a lesser Coefficient of
0.075 0.41 0.33
Coefficient of Power compared to the biomimetic turbine Power
blade [9]. Although, the blades of [9] are designed for high- Method Experimental ANSYS Fluent ANSYS Fluent
velocity tidal streams. These are two different blades
TABLE III. COMPARISON OF NONBIOMIMETIC BLADE DESIGNS AT
designed for different situations, but the design improvement 0.64M/S
method of biomimicry is the same.
Blade Design
Parameters Doman et al, Encarnacion et
Present Study
(2015) al, (2019)
Diameter, (m) 0.762 4 4
TSR 4 4.75 6
Power, (W) 591 521 554.79
Quasi-Unsteady Quasi-Unsteady ANSYS
Method
BEM BEM Fluent

TABLE IV. COMPARISON OF NONBIOMIMETIC BLADE DESIGNS AT

1.136M/S

Blade Design
Parameters Doman et al, Encarnacion et
Present Study
(2015) al, (2019)
Figure 20. Power output comparison versus [3] at 0.64 m/s inlet velocity Diameter, (m) 4 4 4

78

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Blade Design The 0.2C configuration was then integrated into a HATT
Parameters Doman et al, Encarnacion et setup and it was then subjected to transient simulation, using
Present Study
(2015) al, (2019) ANSYS Fluent, at inlet velocities of 0.5, 0.64, and 1.136m/s
TSR 4 4.75 6 and a specified Tip Speed Ratio of 6, since the 0.2C
Power, (W) 3307 2915 3128.75 configuration has the highest glide ratio and better
Quasi-Unsteady Quasi-Unsteady ANSYS
Method
BEM BEM Fluent
hydrodynamic performance. At a constant TSR of 6, the
biomimetic HATT produced a torque of 174.914 Nm, Thrust
TABLE V. COMPARISON OF POWER OUTPUT AT 0.64 M/S INLET of 1299.09 N, and Power of 262.371 W at an inlet velocity of
VELOCITY 0.5m/s. For 0.64m/s, the torque is equal to 288.955 Nm,
0.64 m/s Inlet Velocity
thrust of 2134.20 N, and power of 554.794 W. Lastly, for the
Blade Design Compared to [3] Compared to [2]
1.136m/s inlet velocity, the torque, thrust, and power are
Power (W) 918.054 Nm, 6742.34 N, and 3128.728 W, respectively. The
(%) (%)
Doman et al,
591 - 13.43
biomimetic HATT performed better than the blade design of
(2015) [3] and [2] since this biomimetic design has lesser torque and
Encarnacion higher rotational velocity at (a) almost the same power
521 -11.84 -
et al, (2019)
Present study 554.79 -6.13 6.48
output, (b) same inlet velocities, and (c) the same swept area.
Furthermore, the high TSR operation reduces cost in the
TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF POWER OUTPUT AT 1.136 M/S INLET design of the power take-off system since it can employ
VELOCITY direct drive mechanisms.
1.136 m/s Inlet Velocity
Recommendations for future work would be creating a
Blade Design Compared to [3] Compared to [2]
User Defined Function for profiled flow along with the fluid
Power (W) domain to give a more realistic result since the flow closer to
(%) (%)
Doman et al,
3307 - 13.45
the seabed has a lower velocity than the flow at the surface.
(2015) Wake characteristics and noise measurements are also
Encarnacion recommended. The effect of these could be studied to see to
2915 -11.85 -
et al, (2019)
Present study 3128.73 -5.39 7.33
what extent it affects the biomimetic blade design.
Furthermore, this will also give more understanding of the
TABLE VII. COMPARISON OF BIOMIMETIC BLADE DESIGN WITH tubercle effect that was produced by the sinusoidal leading-
CONSTANT PITCH edge.
A more technical approach could be made for the LET
Blade Design
Parameters configuration, such as an optimization method using a
Shi et al, (2017) Present Study genetic algorithm to vary the amplitude and wavelength that
Number of blades 3 3 fits the specified parameters.
Number of
8 9
protuberances TABLE VIII. SUMMARY OF THE OUTPUT OF THE BIOMIMETIC HATT
Inlet velocity, (m/s) 2 0.5-1.136
Diameter, (m) 0.4 4 Inlet Velocities, (m/s)
Parameters
TSR 0.5-7 6 0.5 0.64 1.136
Coefficient of Power 0.43 0.33 TSR 6 6 6
Method Experimental ANSYS Fluent Angular
Velocity, 1.5 1.92 3.41
(rad/s)
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Thrust, (N) 1299.09 2134.2 6742.34
The researcher designed and performed a CFD Analysis Torque, (Nm) 174.91 288.96 918.05
on a biomimetic horizontal axis tidal turbine for low-velocity Power, (W) 262.37 554.79 3128.73
tidal streams. The aerodynamic characteristics of NREL
S814 at 500,000 Reynold’s Number were acquired using ACKNOWLEDGMENT
QBlade. These data are then used for the development and The author would like to give thanks to the Department
optimization of the blade using QBlade. The baseline blade, of Science and Technology – Engineering Research and
or the 0.0C, is fitted with two LET configurations, namely Development for Technology (DOST-ERDT) Program, and
0.2C and 0.15C. After integrating the biomimetic to the School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering
configurations, it is filtered using steady-state simulation at - Mapúa University. The author would also like to extend his
0.5m/s inlet velocity and 0°ׄ to 20° angle of attack. The gratitude to the people behind this research.
results showed that the 0.2C configuration has the highest
Glide Ratio, which is 6.3109 at a 10°angle of attack. 0.2C REFERENCES
also produced a CL of 0.6115 at 19°before it stalled at 20°. [1] Spellman, F. R. (2016), The Science of Renewable Energy, Second
0.15C produced a CL/CD of 6.1551 at 10°and CL of 0.5883 at Edition
18°before it stalled at 19°while the nonbiomimetic blade, [2] Encarnacion, J. I., Johnstone, C., & Ordonez-Sanchez, S. (2019).
0.0C, stalled at 8°and produced a CL/CD of 5.3008 and CL of “Design of a Horizontal Axis Tidal Turbine for Less Energetic
Current Velocity Profiles,” Journal of Marine Science and
0.2402 at 7°. Engineering, 7(7), 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7070197

79

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [3] Doman, D. A., Murray, R. E., Pegg, M. J., Gracie, K., Johnstone, C. [9] Shi, W., Atlar, M., & Norman, R. (2017), “Humpback whale inspired
M., & Nevalainen, T. (2015), “Tow-tank testing of a 1/20th scale design for tidal turbine blades,” Proc. 5th International Symposium on
horizontal axis tidal turbine with uncertainty analysis,” International Marine Propulsors, smp’17, Espoo, Finland, June 2017
Journal of Marine Energy, 11, 105–119. [10] QBlade Guidelines (2013)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2015.06.003
[11] ANSYS Fluent User Guide, 2019
[4] Hansen, M.O. L. (2008). Aerodynamics of Wind Turbines, Second
[12] Aftab, S. M. A., & Ahmad, K. A. (2017), “CFD study in NACA 4415
Edition
airfoil implementing spherical and sinusoidal tubercle leading-edge,”
[5] Tian, W., Mao, Z., & Ding, H. (2018), “Design, test and numerical PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183456.
simulation of a low-speed horizontal axis hydrokinetic turbine’, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183456
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering,
10(6), 782–793. [13] Guo, C., Zhang, Z., Cao, X., Wu, T., & Su, Y. (2019), “Numerical
and experimental studies of hydrodynamic performance of bionic
[6] Benyus, J. M. (2002). Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature. leading-edge tubercle airfoil,” Journal of Hydrodynamics, 31(6),
New York: Perennial. 1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42241-019-0068-3
[7] F. E. Fish and J. M. Battle, “Hydrodynamic Design of the Humpback [14] ANSYS Fluent - Introduction to Fluent, 2012
Whale Flipper,” Journal of Morphology, Vol. 225, No. 1, 1995, pp.
[15] Dondon, J. S. (2020), “Design and simulation of a Small-scale
51-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1052250105
Horizontal Axis Hydrokinetic Turbine for Ocean Application,”
[8] Ilieva, G. (2020), “Oceanic Biomimicry—An effective tool to achieve (Unpublished Thesis). Mapua University, February 2020
an innovative blade design,” Proc. 18th International Congress of the
Maritime Association of the Mediterranean (IMAM 2019), Varna, [16] Johari, H., Henoch, C., Custodio, D., & Levshin, A. (2007), “Effects
Bulgaria, September 2019 of Leading-Edge Protuberances on Airfoil Performance,” AIAA
Journal, 45(11), 2634–2642. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.28497

80

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA MARIA. Downloaded on January 04,2023 at 17:48:49 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.